SoVote

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ)

May/8/23 10:37:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's remarks, and there is a lot to worry about. That is what I said earlier today. Although we still have several hours of debate ahead of us, I have a question. Holding an independent public inquiry is an essential condition. Will the NDP stance be aligned with its core values when there are votes in the House? Will the NDP stand behind democracy and respect its values down the line? I would like to know the party's position with respect to upcoming votes.

93 words

Ms. Heather McPherson

May/8/23 10:38:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am not one hundred per cent sure what coming votes the member is talking about, but obviously, we would determine how we were voting on something based on which vote it was. That is generally how that works. I think what she might be referring to is the supply and confidence agreement, where we were able to get the government to move forward on certain things because they are very important values that we hold. We will continue to push the government to do things such as make sure that there is affordable housing, dental care for Canadians and all of those things. When the government is doing things that we disagree with, I think we are a very effective opposition at being able to hold it to account to make sure that it recognizes it has to take those actions. The fact that we have a diplomat that has been expelled is because all parties in the House were able to do that. Today, in fact, a vote on the motion was brought forward that we were able to vote on, along with my colleague from the Bloc and, in fact, with the Conservatives, which I guarantee is not a normal state of affairs. We were able to vote as, I guess we can call it, a coalition of the three other parties.

227 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

May/8/23 10:39:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona for her great leadership here in the House, certainly on this issue, and at the foreign affairs committee. She highlighted something that really stood out to me as a member of Parliament, that we still do not know if there are other members of Parliament that have been targeted by foreign entities, not just China, but possibly Russia or Iran, in the House. We did not get an answer from the government today. Could my colleague speak to the importance of a public inquiry and also whether she thinks that the Chinese government would have taken this long to expel a Canadian diplomat if the shoe were on the other foot?

123 words

Ms. Heather McPherson

May/8/23 10:40:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's work in the House on mental health for Canadians is really unparalleled, and I think we all benefit from having him here and the work that he does. With regard to the public inquiry, as I said in my speech, I think it is really one of the only ways that we can ensure that Canadians are able to get that confidence back in our system. I certainly hope that when the special rapporteur comes back with his report, that is one of the things he tells us that he needs. Certainly, that is something I am expecting and looking forward to. The scope of that public inquiry is very important. Another thing that we have talked about is the foreign registry and how important the foreign registry is. If we do not do it right, and if we do not do the foreign registry, it could actually be more dangerous than not. I think there are a lot of ways that we have to look at this. One of them is that we have to make sure that we are as transparent and as open as we possibly can be. We have to ensure that we are recognizing that this is not an issue that is just one country. This is an issue that is for multiple jurisdictions. I think there are ways we can get there if we all choose to work together.

241 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

May/8/23 10:41:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the issue of responding to interference by foreign diplomats. Of course, foreign interference does not always involve diplomats, but it often can and the government has been way behind on disciplining or expelling any diplomats, none up until today. This is in a context where the member pointed out some of the anomalies, in terms of the numbers of diplomats here. She mentioned there are 176 from China and 81 accredited diplomats from Russia. Meanwhile, Poland has 26 accredited diplomats. Germany has 50 accredited diplomats, and the U.K. has 51 accredited diplomats. There are more Russian diplomats here in Canada than German and Polish diplomats combined. There are more than three times as many diplomats from China as there are from the United Kingdom. This suggests that, when we have these large numbers of diplomats from countries that we do not actually have a particularly warm relationships with, without the same level of trade relationships, people-to-people exchanges and so forth, we should be concerned about what those diplomats might be up to, yet the government has allowed very high levels of accredited diplomats from states that have interests that are contrary to our own, and they have not been responding to clear instances of foreign interference. It seems that one issue we should be looking at in responding to foreign interference is asking what the appropriate number of accredited diplomats is. Should it be, in some sense, proportionate to the number of Canadian diplomats in the other place? Should it be proportionate to other aspects of the relationship, and is this an indicator of something else? Further, do we need to be setting limits so that somehow they are proportionate to what the relationship actually is?

297 words

Ms. Heather McPherson

May/8/23 10:43:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member, which again, does not happen very often. I am also very concerned about some of the levels of diplomatic corps we have within this country. I will say that our diplomatic corps was absolutely decimated under the Harper Conservatives. We never built back after the number of embassies that were closed under the Harper Conservatives and the selling of our embassy in the U.K. People wonder why we do not have the same number of diplomatic staff in the U.K., but we sold the building. The fact that it was decimated under Harper, and the Conservatives are standing up to say that they wish we had more diplomatic corps for some of these countries, is a little rich. That said, I do agree with the member. I do not understand the numbers that we see for China, Russia and some of these countries. Really, we should have serious concerns about their interference in our democratic institutions.

165 words

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

May/8/23 10:44:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, last week The Globe and Mail uncovered a 2021 report from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service outlining how Canada had become a high priority for interference by the Chinese Communist government. It highlighted how my colleague, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, had had his family in Hong Kong targeted in retaliation for his vote on a motion in the House that recognized Beijing's genocide of Uyghur Muslims in the Xinjiang province. Since that time, the Speaker has ruled that a prima facie case of contempt concerning the intimidation campaign orchestrated by a now expelled diplomat against the member for Wellington—Halton Hills indeed took place. That is what brings us here tonight. Thinking back to that vote on the Uyghur Muslims, the Minister of International Trade, the member for Markham—Thornhill, was so concerned about voting against the Conservative motion, which outlined the genocidal acts of China, that she called into the Speaker's chair remotely to change her vote. I remember fondly and sadly that the entire Liberal cabinet refused to stand up for Uyghur Muslims and abstained from the vote. Opposition motions have consequences. I think if we were to think of one that has had a major consequence, it is this one. Since that vote, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills has had his family targeted for standing up for what he believes in. As a Canadian, it pains me to think that a member of this chamber was intimidated by a foreign government for taking a stand in our country. That is shameful. As I mentioned in the House of Commons last week, I believe some of the challenges we have faced with respect to foreign interference could have been better handled by the current government, which has been in power for seven and a half years. Indeed, the member for Kingston and the Islands has repeatedly stated throughout the debates over the last week that if only the leader of the official opposition had acted in 2013, if only Stephen Harper would have done more, we would not find ourselves where we are today. The fact of the matter is that it was the current government that created the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. In 2019, it released a report which outlined a number of concerning facts in “Chapter 2: The Government Response to Foreign Interference”. It notes, that while “Canada's allies have identified interference as a significant threat and have initiated various countermeasures...foreign interference in Canada has received minimal media and academic coverage, and is not part of wider public discourse.” I will note that since the release of this report in March of 2020, things have changed quite substantially in Canada, but it bears repeating that this non-partisan committee, which only issues statements if all members of the committee agree with it, was able to outline a number of serious threats which completely relate to the prima facie case against the member for Wellington—Halton Hills when his family was threatened by a foreign government. Finding eight specifically in the report states, “Some foreign states conduct sophisticated and pervasive foreign interference activities against Canada.” Two countries that were repeatedly referenced were China and Russia. The report goes on to note, “Those activities pose a significant risk to national security, principally by undermining Canada's fundamental institutions and eroding the rights and freedoms of Canadians.” Finding nine in the report states, “CSIS has consistently conducted investigations and provided advice to government on foreign interference.” Finding 10 states, “Throughout the period under review, the interdepartmental coordination and collaboration on foreign interference was case-specific and ad hoc. Canada's ability to address foreign interference is limited by the absence of a holistic approach to consider relevant risks, appropriate tools and possible implications of responses to state behaviours.” The issuance of this report was really not too far off from when we had the vote condemning the genocide in China against Uyghur Muslims. Finding 11 in the report states, “Foreign interference has received historically less attention in Canada than other national security threats.” Finding 12 states: Government engagement on foreign interference has been limited. With the exception of CSIS outreach activities, the government's interaction with sub-national levels of government and civil society on foreign interference is minimal. Paragraphs 256 and 267 state this directly. Finding 12 continues: Engagement is limited in part by the lack of security-cleared individuals at the sub-national level. There is no public foreign interference strategy or public report similar to those developed for terrorism or cyber security. Those points can be found at paragraphs 289-291. Finding 13 in the report states, “Canada is working increasingly with its closest allies and partners to address foreign interference.” This, of course, is essential, but in the case that we are debating here tonight, it did not come soon enough. The committee made a number of recommendations on actions the government could take to combat foreign interference; however, not a single one of them has been comprehensively addressed since this report was tabled in 2020. The fifth recommendation suggests that: The Government of Canada develop a comprehensive strategy to counter foreign interference and build institutional and public resiliency. Drawing from the Committee's review and findings, such a strategy should: a) identify the short- and long-term risks and harms to Canadian institutions and rights and freedoms posed by the threat of foreign interference; b) examine and address the full range of institutional vulnerabilities targeted by hostile foreign states, including areas expressly omitted in the Committee's review; c) assess the adequacy of existing legislation that deals with foreign interference, such as the Security of Information Act or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, and make proposals for changes if required; d) develop practical, whole-of-government operational and policy mechanisms to identify and respond to the activities of hostile states; e) establish regular mechanisms to work with sub-national levels of government and law enforcement organizations, including to provide necessary security clearances; f) include an approach for ministers and senior officials to engage with fundamental institutions and the public; and g) guide cooperation with allies on foreign interference. The sixth recommendation suggests that: The Government of Canada support this comprehensive strategy through sustained central leadership and coordination. As an example of a centralized coordinating entity to address foreign interference, the Committee refers to the appointment and mandate of the Australian National Counter Foreign Interference Coordinator. This is an example of what Canada could be doing. I will note as a side point that the committee even found it necessary to re-highlight the egregious actions of the Prime Minister during his visit to India in 2018, calling on cabinet ministers to be reminded of the expectations described in the government's own “Open and Accountable Government” document that it tabled in 2015. In conclusion, the government spent the entire week blaming the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and peddling a false narrative that the member knew what took place and that he was somehow guilty for what happened. I am glad that Parliament has ruled in favour of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and found that, indeed, his privileges as a member of Parliament, which I know all of us in this chamber hold sacred, were challenged. NSICOP has outlined comprehensive steps, as I have tried to remind the chamber tonight. We have a lot to do, but until the government seriously considers taking these steps, we will not see comprehensive action or have the abilities, as legislators in society as a whole, to combat foreign actors when they try to intervene in Canada's personal affairs.

1312 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

May/8/23 10:55:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-22

Mr. Speaker, the member referenced that I was pining over the fact that the member for Carleton or the previous government had never done anything about this. However, that was just the context I was using to set the stage for telling members about all the things we did do, as well as all the things we have done since becoming elected, that Conservatives have routinely voted against, including this member. Bill C-22 created NSICOP, which he now speaks so highly about. Conservatives voted against it. Bill C-59 created and established NSIRA. Conservatives voted against it. Bill C-76 limited foreign ability to influence elections through monetary contributions. Conservatives voted against it. Conservatives have routinely voted against initiatives that the government has brought forward to combat foreign interference. The fact that the previous Conservative government did nothing is just the context to set in order to highlight everything that we have done. Could the member share with the House why he and his colleagues voted against all those measures?

171 words

Mr. Brad Vis

May/8/23 10:56:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, specifically on the NSICOP measure, although the report has been able to reach some necessary conclusions, this parliamentary committee does not report to Parliament. It reports to the Prime Minister's Office. What the Conservatives called for from day one was an independent committee that reported to this institution; at the end of the day, it is this institution that Canadians vote for and are worried about. It is this institution that foreign governments are trying to undermine. They do this by threatening members of Parliament based on the members voting as they see fit on behalf of the communities they represent.

104 words

Nsicop

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

May/8/23 10:57:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. As a fellow British Columbian, I always appreciate working with him on the protection of wild salmon. In terms of the topic tonight, we know the problem of foreign interference is not just about China. Canada needs to do way more when it comes to combatting foreign interference from all countries, from illegal police stations to election fraud, attempts to spy on our airspace and threatening members of Parliament here in this House. Canadians are rightly concerned about foreign interference by the Chinese government, as well as other governments. It is up to the government to defend Canadians from threats to our democracy. Right now, the government is letting Canadians down. We need a foreign registry, a public inquiry into foreign interference, better contact points for Canadians being threatened and intimidated, and better protection from foreign spies. Does he agree the government needs to take swift action in dealing with foreign interference and spying, extending beyond China?

168 words

Mr. Brad Vis

May/8/23 10:58:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right to point out that it is not simply China that is trying to interfere in the affairs of Canada. The report specifically mentions Russia as well. Indeed, Canada needs a foreign registry similar to what Australia and the United States of America have. Canada needs to establish a national public inquiry on the matter of foreign election interference. Canada must close down the police stations run by the People's Republic of China in Canada. Thankfully, the government finally had some courage today to expel a diplomat who was threatening Canadian members of Parliament.

100 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

May/8/23 10:59:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question, and I would really like to hear his personal opinion. The foreign agent registry he referred to a short time ago has been implemented in Australia. At the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, we heard testimony that this registry was not working, that there were flaws in it and that the objectives in question had not been achieved. I wonder if my colleague could comment on what he might suggest to ensure that such a registry achieves the objectives that are set.

96 words

Mr. Brad Vis

May/8/23 11:00:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, respecting the design of a registry in Canada, I am glad the committee the member serves on is looking closely at what is taking place in the United States. I would defer any design of such a registry to officials at CSIS and the RCMP. I am not an expert on the design of a foreign agent registry. We do know, in Canada, that the best medicine is often sunshine and transparency. When we design any reporting requirements on behalf of the Government of Canada, be it for Canadian citizens or foreign actors, the best method is always to make sure that information is outlined in a clear and tangible way. Thus, law enforcement agencies across Canada would be able to use the registry effectively and, ultimately, Canadians would be protected from foreign actors seeking to interfere in the business of this House.

145 words

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

May/8/23 11:01:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in this debate tonight, although it is somewhat sad to have to talk about this topic. I find that the Liberals' reaction to the situation with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills is quite disturbing. First, a couple of days ago, the Liberals had two of their members attack the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, saying that he should have acted more quickly because he had been briefed two years ago. Second, at the Liberal convention this weekend, the public safety minister was attacking CSIS, saying that CSIS should have directly reported to the Prime Minister, briefing him on the situation. It is not the job of CSIS to read the report to the Prime Minister. Even his top security adviser said that the report went to Privy Council, but they did not read it. My question to my hon. colleague is as follows: When are the Liberals going to run out of people to blame? What does the member think happened?

172 words

Mr. Brad Vis

May/8/23 11:02:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, since elected, I have really gotten to appreciate the hon. member's advocacy for the agricultural sector and his amazing hockey skills. To the question specifically, it is one I have actually been pondering for a number of nights. A report lands on the desk of a CSIS agent, stating very clearly that a member of Parliament has been targeted by a foreign government. What is that CSIS agent going to do? My understanding is that a security and intelligence officer would probably want to move that up the chain of command very quickly. A threat to a parliamentarian is a serious matter. The excuses given by the government so far, in the last week of discussing this matter, do not seem to add up. The fact of the matter is that this was likely brought forward to the Prime Minister. That is exactly why I asked the Prime Minister, today in question period, when he would stop misleading Canadians about what actually happened. We need some transparency on this matter. I hope the debate we are having over this question of privilege continues to expose the lack of concrete action by the government. In fact, in some cases, it may be that negligence was shown to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills by not taking the appropriate action to move forward and provide the protection required to him and his relatives in such circumstances.

238 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

May/8/23 11:04:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's willingness to talk about the other countries we need to look into. I remember the first time I heard in the media, and others around the room may recall this as well, that Hillary Clinton's people were making the claim that Russian interference had something to do with the leaks that damaged her campaign. I thought they were really reaching there, and I wondered if it was at all plausible. Now we know that not only was it plausible, but it happened. We have seen interference from a number of actors in particular. I voted for the motion for a full inquiry, for shutting down the police stations and for moving forward. I just want to share that I did not want us to restrict ourselves only to the question of the moment of Chinese interference in our elections but, instead, make sure that we looked at the broader question. This question is how we ensure that we are on top of everything we could do to protect Canadian democracy from foreign interference. Does the hon. member have any comments on that?

191 words

Mr. Brad Vis

May/8/23 11:05:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the question is very important, and it points to the overall capacity of the Government of Canada to respond to foreign interference in whatever format it threatens our country. That is why I outlined, again, the NSICOP annual report for 2019, which calls for such a strategy to provide a whole-of-government approach, so that Canadians can be confident in our institutions.

65 words

Hon. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC)

May/8/23 11:06:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate tonight. I will start, as I did on Thursday, with an expression of solidarity with and admiration for our colleague in the House. I say “our colleague” and not “our Conservative colleague”. Our colleague is a member of Parliament, the member of Parliament for Wellington—Halton Hills, who has done great work representing his constituents and standing up for our country in the House for almost 20 years, so it is important to start there. Right now, and it might be lost on folks tuning in and wondering what we are talking about at this late hour, we are debating a motion that states, “That the prima facie contempt concerning the intimidation campaign orchestrated by Wei Zhao against the Member for Wellington—Halton Hills and other Members be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.” The Speaker ruled today, in his ruling on parliamentary privilege, that there was a contempt of Parliament. Now we are debating whether the House committee that studies these things would take this up. That is what we are debating today. I find it really interesting that almost no Liberals have actually spoken in the debate today, and when they have spoken, we have not known what their position is. No one has signalled what their individual position is or what the party position is. For the most part, when Liberals have gotten up and spoken, it has been to sow chaos, quite frankly, to raise random points of order and to weigh in in that way, not to contribute to the conversation in any way or to stand up for the privileges of a member, and therefore for the privileges of all members of the House of Commons. Today, as has been referenced several times in the House, we voted on a Conservative motion that we debated last Thursday. Interestingly, in a rare show of agreement, Conservative, Bloc, NDP and Green members voted together on what seemed like a very straightforward motion; it was very much common sense if people have been following what is going on. There is some preamble that lays out the situation. It is not overly political, and there are four main points. The motion is calling on the government to “(a) create a foreign agent registry similar to Australia and the United States of America”. That seems pretty reasonable right now. It continues with “(b) establish a national public inquiry on the matter of foreign election interference”. We have been talking about foreign election interference for some time, for months now, in the House. Next, it states, “(c) close down the People's Republic of China run police stations operating in Canada”. For most Canadians, hearing me say that will be alarming, because they would wonder how in the world any government would allow that to happen. The motion ends with “d) expel all of the People's Republic of China diplomats responsible for and involved in these affronts to Canadian democracy”. That is something that most Canadians would think would be common sense, and most Canadians, again, would be surprised to understand that the first such diplomat was expelled only today. That is what has led us to this point in the House. Thursday was interesting, because, as I mentioned, it would be surprising to most people that those were the four points that we passionately debated in the House. The government, like all members, was given notice that there was going to be a debate, so parties and individual members could get prepared for that debate and understand what their individual and party positions might be. I certainly came to the House expecting to have a passionate debate about something really important, but I expected that all members would rally together to understand the gravity of what we were talking about. Then we got to the House, and it was very clear that most of the members from most of the parties of the House came expecting to have that reasonable debate in the interest of Canadians, understanding the gravity of the situation. However, Liberal members came to the House with what seemed to be a coordinated strategy. There is no other explanation, because it seemed like a deliberate strategy to just cause chaos in the House. The Liberals have two parliamentary secretaries to the House leader. They are both very well known to members of the House, and both of them undertook a strategy, and it was a very clear strategy, to actually call into question the credibility of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

790 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/8/23 11:11:26 p.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.

11 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/8/23 11:11:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have raised this point of order at least three times now for the same member who has been raising the same points. He knows full well that I have since explained what I was intending to say and that I have apologized unreservedly to that member, to all Conservatives, to the Speaker and to this House for that comment. I think it has already been ruled to that effect, and I think you should reinforce that ruling, Mr. Speaker. An hon. member: It's not a point of order.

92 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 192